REPORT - Staff Councilstaffunion.unov.org/docs/SMC-III_Final_Report_Approved.pdf · Follow-up...

REPORT

SESSION III OF THE

STAFF-MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

Valencia24 to 29 June 2014

Page I of 20

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Item Subject Page

I°

I.

II.

III.

IV.

V.

VI.

VII.

VIII.

IX.

X.

XI.

XII.

XIII.

XIV.

XV.

XVI.

XVII.

Table of Documents .................................................................................................... 3

Introduction ................................................................................................................. 5

Organization of Work .................................................................................................. 6

Rules of Procedure and Administrative Instruction on SMC ...................................... 6

Follow-up Report on the Implementation of SMCC/SMC Agreements ..................... 8

General Service and Related Categories: New Global GS Online Test (GGST) ........ 8

Transition Management - GS and Related Categories Job Openings ........................ 8

Secretary-General's Human Rights Screening Policy of UN Personnel ..................... 9

Roster Management ................................................................................................... 10

Workforce Reshaping/Downsizing ........................................................................... 11

Performance Management ......................................................................................... 12

Mobility ..................................................................................................................... 13

Disciplinary Measures and Investigations ................................................................. 15

Whistleblower" Protection / Protection from Retaliation ......................................... 16

Use of UN Working Languages ................................................................................ 17

Topics for Yearly Programme of Work and Budget ................................................. 18

Adoption of Report .................................................................................................... 20

Closing Statements .................................................................................................... 20

Page 2 of 20

I. Table of Documents

Annex I - Organization of the session

Appendix 1Appendix 2Appendix 3

Agenda for SMC IIIList of ParticipantsList of Documents

Annex II - Statements

Appendix 1Appendix 2

Appendix 3Appendix 4Appendix 5

Secretary-General's Message for the Staff-Management Committee MeetingStatement of the Under-Secretary-General for Management to the Staff-Management Committee MeetingOpening Remarks of the President of the Staff-Management CommitteeOpening Remarks of the Vice-President of the Staff-Management CommitteeStatement of"UNSU Position of Principle"

Annex III - Documents submitted to the Staff Management Committee III

Agenda Item 3 - Rules of Procedure and Administrative Instruction on the SMCAppendix 1 Rules of ProcedureAppendix 2 ST/AI/2014/3

Agenda Item 4 - Follow-up Report on the Implementation of SMCC/SMC AgreementsAppendix 3 SMCCAppendix 4 SMC IAppendix 5 SMC II

Agenda Item 5 - General Service and Related Categories: New Global GS Online Test(GGST)Submitted by ManagementAppendix 6 Creating a Global General Service Test (GGST)Appendix 7 Presentation on the Global General Service Test

Agenda Item 6 - Transition Management - GS and Related Categories Job OpeningsSubmitted by ManagementAppendix 8 Helping GS staff during transition due to Umoja etc.

Agenda Item 7 - Secretary-General's Human Rights Screening Policy of UN PersonnelSubmitted by StajrAppendix 9 Modifying the human rights screening policy

Agenda Item 8 - Roster ManagementSubmitted by Staff/ManagementAppendix 10 Expansion of roster membership to include the selected candidate for post-

specific job opening

Page 3 of 20

Appendix 11 Expansion of roster membership to include the selected candidate for post-specific job opening and other measures

Agenda Item 9 - Workforce Reshaping/DownsizingSubmitted by Working GroupAppendix 12 [ Harmonization of downsizing policy and procedures

Agenda Item 10 - Performance ManagementSubmitted by ManagementAppendix 13 Revising the performance management systemAppendix 14 Accompanying form for a revised performance management system

Agenda Item 11 - MobilitySubmitted by St@ YManagementAppendix 15Appendix 16Appendix 17Appendix 18Appendix 19Appendix 20Appendix 21

Development of detailed aspects of the mobility frameworkProposal on transitional measures for the mobility policyAccompanying GA Resolution 68/265Identification of non-rotational postsAccompanying list of 125 non-rotational postsSupporting staff and families moving duty stationsStatement of"UN-Globe"

Agenda Item 12 - Disciplinary Measures and InvestigationsSubmitted by ManagementAppendix 22 Draft TOR for the sub-working group on investigations and disciplinary

matters

genda Item 13 - Whistleblower Protection/Protection from RetaliationSubmitted by StaffAppendix 23 [ Improving whistleblower protection

Agenda Item 14 - Use of the UN Working LanguagesSubmitted by StaffAppendix 24 I Ensuring equality between UN working languages

Page 4 of 20

Report of the Third Sessionof the Staff-Management Committee

I. Introduction

1. The third session of the Staff-Management Committee (SMC) took place from 24 to 29 June2014 in Valencia, Spain.

° The new President of SMC III, Mr. David Yeandle, formally opened the session on 24 June2014, thanking the participants for their presence in Valencia. He also thanked Mr. IsmetTraljic, the OIC of UN Support Base in Valencia (UNSB), for hosting the SMC III. ThePresident welcomed the newcomers to the Committee and also welcomed the new LegalAdviser for the SMC, Mr. Stadler Trengove of OLA, and the new Secretary, Ms. YukoMuramatsu of DM. The President then asked all attendees to stand for a minute's silence inmemory of Ms. Nicole Bergener-Guimaraes, an active member of the SMC, who had passedaway during the year.

. The President invited Mr. Yukio Takasu, Under-Secretary-General for Management, todeliver the welcome statement on behalf of the Secretary-General. The Secretary-Generalexpressed his pleasure that the Staff and the Management had come together under the newframework for constructive work and cooperation. He welcomed the new President andwished him every success. (The statement of the Secretary-General is attached as SMC III,Annex II/Appendix 1).

, Mr. Takasu then delivered his statement in his capacity as the Under-Secretary-General forManagement. He welcomed the new President, Secretary and Legal Adviser. He affirmed thepledge to work with trust and to be open minded, and thanked all those who had workedconstructively in the Working Group to develop the new framework for the SMC. He alsothanked those who had facilitated the training workshop for SMC members held on the daybefore the opening of the session. (The full statement of Mr. Takasu, is attached as SMC III,Annex II/Appendix 2)

. The President proceeded with his opening remarks on the occasion of the third session of theSMC. He thanked everyone for their warm welcome, expressed his honor to take up the newrole and stressed the need for an independent and impartial President for such an importantcommittee. He then shared with the SMC his professional and personal background. (The fullstatement of the President is attached as SMC III, Annex II/Appendix 3)

Election of Vice-President

. The President requested nominations for the Office of the Vice-President of the SMC. TheStaff nominated Mr. Ian Richards. In the absence of other nominations, the Presidentcongratulated Mr. Richards on his election and wished him well.

. Following the election for the Vice-President, Mr. Egor Ovcharenko requested the floor todeliver a short statement on "UNSU Position of Principle". (The statement is attached asSMC III, Annex II/Appendix 5)

Page 5 of 20

. The elected Vice-President, Mr. Richards, delivered his statement in which he briefly spokeabout the new framework for continuous SMC consultations throughout the year and thenumerous subjects on this session's agenda. (The statement is attached as SMC III, AnnexII/Appendix 4)

Rapporteurs

9. The President called for the appointment of rapporteurs. Staff appointed Mr. Nadir Dirar andMr. Abraham Tameru and Management appointed Ms. Hazel Scott and Mr. David Iyamah.

3x3 Contact Group

10. The President called for the appointment of the 3x3 Contact Group members. Staff appointedMr. James Ohayo, Mr. Georges Younes and Ms. Therese Bjork and Management appointedMs. Ruth de Miranda, Mr. Peter Van Laere, and Mr. Anthony Duncker.

II. Organization of work

11. Upon the invitation of the President, the Committee adopted the agenda of the SMC III,(attached as Annex I/Appendix 1), as amended based on the proposals and agreements by theCommittee.

12. The list of documents made available to the members before and during the SMC session iscontained in SMC III Annex I/Appendix 3. The list of participants of the session is containedin SMC III, Annex I/Appendix 2.

III. Rules of Procedure and Administrative Instruction on SMC

13. Management reported that the Secretary-General had appointed a joint "SMC WorkingGroup on the Staff Management Committee (WG)." This WG had been tasked to "developrecommendations for consideration by the Secretary-General on the process or modalities bywhich the Staff-Management Committee will endeavor to reach agreement on advice andrecommendations to be presented to the Secretary-General within the Staff-ManagementCommittee, and, where there is disagreement in the Committee, recommendations on theprocess or modalities by which Staff and Management would work to overcome the barriersto agreement."

14. Following many meetings and consultations, the WG had agreed on a range of processes andprinciples that would guide and enhance the work of the SMC within the framework of theSecretary-General's bulletin ST/SGB/2011/6/Rev. 1. The key recommendations of the WG,which were to be set out in an administrative issuance and/or Rules of Procedure, asappropriate, had been endorsed by the Secretary-General. A draft Administrative Instruction(ST/AI) had been developed and required consultations with the relevant stakeholders.

Page 6 of 20

15. Likewise, draft Rules of Procedure for the SMC had been developed on the basis of section7.1 of ST/SGB/2011/6/Rev. 1, for consideration by the SMC.

16. The draft ST/AI reflects the key principles agreed upon and sets out further details on theframework under which the SMC will operate and seek to find agreement or overcomebarriers to agreement of views. It further sets out the frequency of sessions and meetings fora continuous exchange within the SMC; thereby moving away from the former modusoperandi of having only an annual session.

17. The language in the draft ST/AI had largely been agreed in the Working Group discussionsbetween Staff and Management, with the exception of sections 1.3 and 7.1.

18. Following discussion on the wording of section 1.3 of the draft ST/AI, Managementindicated that it was prepared to agree to a rewording of section 1.3 in order to align it to theprovision in ST/AI!293 subject to the proviso that the Report of the SMC reflected their viewthat matters under the new ST/AI on the SMC were not subject to appeal to the UNDT orUNAT. Staff stated that, in their view, this draft provision in section 1.3 was redundant.

19. The Management proposal was agreed by the Staff and the revised version of section 1.3 wastherefore incorporated into the draft ST/AI on the SMC, subject to the proviso that is set outin the preceding paragraph of this Report.

20. After further discussions on the wording of section 7.1 (budget), the SMC also foundwording that was agreed by both sides.

21. The SMC agreed on the final language to be reflected in ST/AI/2014/XX (The documentis attached as SMC III, Annex ilI/Appendix 2).

22. Following adoption of the wording of the ST/AI, the Under-Secretary-General forManagement, as the authorized official to promulgate Administrative Instructions, expressedhis willingness to promulgate the ST/AI.

23. Management then presented the Rules of Procedure that complement the existing proceduralprovisions in ST/SGB/2011/6/Rev. 1 and the agreed ST/AI on the SMC. These Rules ofProcedure focus primarily on the conduct of efficient meetings and sessions and address theopening and closing of sessions, meetings and individual agenda items, as well as thefacilitation of debates through the President, including motions that members can submit andraise as points of procedure and order.

24. Staff had provided some additional feedback on the draft language in the Rules of Procedurethat had not been fully resolved at the Working Group level. Following further discussionsand drafting consultations on some provisions by representatives of Staff and Managementwith the support of the Legal Adviser, a final draft version was presented to the SMC.

25. The SMC agreed to adopt the Rules of Procedure for the SMC with effect from 24 June2014. (The:document is attached as SMC Iii, Annex III/Appendix !). :

Page 7 of 20

26. The President then closed the discussion on this item.

IV. Follow-up Report on the Implementation of SMCC/SMC Agreements

27. A member of the Contact Group briefed the Committee on the status of the implementationsof the agreements reached at previous SMCC and SMC sessions.

28. The status of those agreements was amended. This updated status is reflected in AnnexIII/Appendixes 3, 4 and 5.

29. The SMC will continue to consider how to handle items that are still outstanding infuture SMC sessions and meetings. : : : i: •


V. General Service and Related Categories: New Global GS Online Test (GGST)

31. Management briefed the Committee on the progress that had been made on the developmentof the Global GS Test (GGST). It presented the components and structure of the test, thefindings of the pilot and the proposed roll-out plan.

32. Staff noted that the pilot had been conducted in nine kIN entities in six duty stations in April2014 and had received positive feedback from the participants. They also noted that the testwill be launched on 15 July 2014 in New York and rolled out in phases in other duty stations.Staff welcomed that the test will be computer based and requested that it be developed inlanguages other than English and French, if required, and that a re-testing policy bedeveloped.

33. The SMC agreed to endorse the development of the new online test, with global roll-out l• to begin on 15 July 2014ÿ:Management will explore the necessity of having the test in l• •other languages. ÿIanagement wail also explore/riÿvisit the re-testing policy that has:i::

34. The relevant documents are attached as SMC III, Annex III/Appendixes 7 and 8.


VI. Transition Management - GS and Related Categories Job Openings

36. Management introduced the topic in the context of mitigating any impact that the

Page 8 of 20

implementation of Umoja may have on staff in the GS and related categories. The mainpolicy directive in this context is that positions in the GS and related categories (except asexpressly excluded in the paper presentation) will be open to internal candidates only.However, where no suitable internal candidate can be identified, external candidates willexceptionally be considered. Staff members applying for posts outside their duty station willbe considered as external candidates. Specific conditions are set out in the paper. Whereexceptionally an external candidate is hired with the approval of the Assistant Secretary-General for Human Resources Management (ASG/OHRM), such a candidate will be granteda temporary appointment.

37. Staff stated that they felt that staff members in the GS and related categories should beconsidered as internal candidates when they applied to other duty stations, provided they paidtheir travel and shipment expenses etc. themselves. Otherwise, the break/resignation requiredfor external status would limit voluntary moves. Also citizenship/resident status or a workpermit should not be required to be eligible unless this was required by national law. Further,UN staff members applying to agencies, funds and programmes within the same duty stationshould be considered to be internal candidates.

38. Management explained that priority should be given to staff at the same duty station, but thatit would give consideration to accepting staff applying from other duty stations as internalcandidates with distinctly different conditions of service (e.g., payment of travel andshipment costs to be covered by the candidate; no international benefits apply etc.). The JOwould have to clarify these elements. Currently, there may be some agreements at specificduty stations among specialized agencies on the consideration of candidates from otherentities at the same duty stations, but such measures require agreement among such entitiesand full alignment of selection processes among such entities, e.g., the Secretariat andparticipating Funds and Programmes.

39. Management agreed to consider :the feedback from Staff in the implementation of thesemeasures and, where feasible, to incorporate them. • :

40. The relevant documents are attached as SMC III, Annex III/Appendix 8.


VII. Secretary-General's Human Rights Screening Policy of UN Personnel

42. Staff introduced their paper on the Secretary-General's Human Rights Screening Policy ofUN Personnel and requested an update on the status and scope of the Policy. Staff generallysupported the Policy's objective of ensuring that persons who had violated human rights arenot serving in the United Nations. However, they had some major concerns about (i) the lackof consultations with Staff prior to the Policy Committee's recommendation on the adoptionof the Policy by the Secretary-General should not be seen as setting a precedent on theprocess for introducing new policies, (ii) possible arbitrariness in selection decisions basedon the standards set by the Policy, (iii) due process rights and possible appeals by staff

Page 9 of 20

members, (vi) unclear language in the question staff members were asked, (v) the means ofinvestigating human rights violations by the Organization and (vi) the need to ensure thatonly staff who were found guilty of such violations and not just facing allegations would beexcluded from service.

43. Management, joined by the Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights (OHCHR)via video link as substantive experts, responded and acknowledged that the adoption processfor the Policy had not been ideal in the context of Staff-Management consultations.Unfortunately, the political pressure to introduce measures to protect the Organization frompotential reputational harm and the Premature closure of the SMC in 2013 had not, despitethe best efforts of the Department of Management, provided opportunities to consult withStaff on the matter. This unique situation was not to be understood to be precedent setting, asthe Policy Committee normally does not deal with administrative issues but rather handlespolitical matters. However, Management also noted that, although the Policy applies to allUN personnel including staff, the Policy does not impact on staff welfare or terms ofappointment. The Policy is in line with the regulatory framework, as well as the alreadyapplicable UN Charter standards. Further, the concerns raised by Staff had been carefullyconsidered when developing the Policy. OHCHR explained that the standards reflected in thePolicy ("reasonable grounds for involvement, by act or omission") stem directly from theinternationally recognized standard applied by human rights bodies, and is the standardapplied by the United Nations in non-judicial human rights investigations and is a well-established threshold related to the obligation to investigate under international human rightslaw. The process of screening or requesting staff to attest as to their involvement is not ajudicial process nor meant to establish guilt in a judicial context. OHCHR further explainedthat the standard of "conviction" or "guilt" would be insufficient due to the lack of properimplementation of relevant conventions in some Member States, lack of accountability, weaklegal systems, impunity etc. Management also referred to the previously applied standard ofasking staff to disclose prior "arrests," not only convictions. Such information is relevant toensure an informed discretionary selection decision that recognizes the standards expectedunder the UN Charter and the best interests of the Organization. Due process rights follow inall cases from the applicable procedure; e.g. if a staff provided false information or newinformation arises, the procedures for disciplinary action/facts anterior would apply. There isno change in rights for current staff members.

44. The SMC agreed that a:Contact Group of OHRM and staff representatives would bei established to submit Staff Views via OHRM to the inter-departmental working Group

; i tasked to implementthe policy. There would also be the opportunity for periodic direct: :i :interactions (VTC/TelCon)' beiween staff representatives and the inter-departmental: Working:Group. :iiÿ ' : ÿ:i: : • : ÿ:



VIII. Roster Management

Page 10 of 20

47. Management introduced the paper on this item, which followed prior proposals made in 2012and 2013. Management explained that there was a discrepancy in treatment between selectedand other recommended candidates; i.e. all CRB recommended candidates were placed onrosters with the exception of the selected candidate. Even when staff on rosters was laterselected, they remained on the roster but this had not been the case for the initially selectedcandidate. This has now been adjusted.

48. Staff referred to the Staff paper on this item, proposing that candidates selected since 2009should also be placed on rosters indefinitely, but with the opportunity to opt out of the rosterwithin a specified timeframe. Staff further pointed to a discrepancy following the UNATjudgment confirming the policy that job openings can be closed as soon as a rosteredcandidate is selected. This practice makes is more difficult for staff not already on rosters tobe selected through competitive selection, or to advance far enough in the process to beplaced on a roster if not selected.

49. Management understood the concerns raised and stated that the option to "opt-out" withinthree months could be accommodated, but this was subject to adjustments being made to theroster platform (Inspira).

50. The SMC agreed that Management would seek to accommodate an option to opt outfrom roster membership subject to a review of the required system adjustments. The

• SMC also agreed that roster management may have to be reviewed in the context of theimplementation of the mobility policy.

51. The relevant documents are attached as SMC IlI, Annex III/Appendixes 10 and 11.


IX. Workforce Reshaping/Downsizing

53. Management introduced the topic on the basis of the paper by the SMC Working Group onworkforce reshaping/downsizing/restructuring. Previously, each mission or office that wasdownsizing had developed and applied mission or office-specific procedures/measures. TheWorking Group outcome aims to provide a basis for the development of a streamlined,organization-wide approach, to be reflected in an administrative issuance. Such a policywould consolidate, inter alia, definitions of downsizing, abolition of posts, reduction of staffetc., options for affected staff, action to be taken in case of reclassification or new positions,the scope of such measures (i.e. staff member of Secretariat holding fixed-term, continuing orpermanent appointments if appointed through regular procedures), comparative review,consultation process and termination scenarios.

54. Staff appreciated the work that had been done by the Working Group but requested thatfurther discussions be held to clarify various measures in the case of organizational change.These included (i) means to reduce stress faced by staff, (ii) the prescribed order of retention

Page 11 of 20

of staff members based on type of appointment, (iii) the consequences where consultationswere felt to be insufficient, (iv) cross-departmental placement and (v) oversight measures.Staff also shared some positive experiences that they had with downsizing by management inthe UN tribunals.

55. Management assured Staff that the Working Group had looked at a wide range of possiblescenarios but that the subject was complex as other factors (such as the General Assemblydecision that all vacant positions be advertised and be open for external applicants) limitedthe Secretary-General's authority. Any measures would also have to comply with the currentlegal framework. Further, the UN Secretariat operates with four separate budgets that providediffering degrees of predictability for workforce planning, in addition to the role of theGeneral Assembly as the legislative body approving funds and administrative structures. Tominimize the impact on staff in downsizing scenarios, Management felt that staff also have tocooperate including, for example, by applying for vacancies in order to be considered forother positions.

• 56. The SMC agreed that this matter would be referred back to the Working Group;for thedevelopmentÿ of further details and cousideratlon:::ÿfor thepreparation ofila:draflAdministrative Instruction; The Working Group is to report back to the SMCno laterthan ::the end:of 2014, andpossibly earfier, in a foÿthcomingperiodic or ad hoc SMC

57. The relevant documents are attached as SMC III, Annex Ill/Appendix 12.


X. Performance Management

59. Management introduced the paper on performance management that details adjustments tothe current process. These had been subject to comprehensive consultations. The adjustmentsaim to make the process less cumbersome and increase fairness and efficiency which, in turn,will increase compliance. There will be a greater role for the second reporting officer andmanagers will be assessed against their management skills in undertaking appraisals. Theappraisal form will be significantly shortened to better comply with best practices and theassessment will be based on ongoing dialogue throughout the review cycle rather than amandatory midterm review. Other adjustments made related to the interaction between firstand second reporting officers and the selection/composition of rebuttal panels. Humanresources staff will be trained to assist in the appraisal process, where necessary, and themonitoring of ratings in each department or across departments will be improved.

60. Staff requested additional oversight and accountability in the process, the retention ofmidterm reviews and guidance on the implementation of performance improvement plansinitiated by first reporting officers to prevent any manipulation of the system. Given the linkbetween completed appraisals and other decisions (e.g. contract extensions), the completionof appraisals should also be a mandatory part of the check-out process for managers leaving

Page 12 of 20

before the end of a cycle. Staff requested that the draft Administrative Instruction be sharedwith staff representatives.

61. Management responded that more detailed guidance/training will be provided to managersthrough the forthcoming HR portal. Additionally, increased monitoring will revealoutstanding appraisals in a timely manner which should reduce delays. The same applies forongoing dialogue rather than midterm reviews: This will increase compliance and the qualityof the appraisal. Given that the General Assembly is expecting a report on the matter inSeptember 2014, further feedback from Staff, which is welcome, must be obtained wellbefore that time.

62. Staff submitted a paper in response to the proposals by Management. Management welcomedthese comments and Staff commitment to complete the consultation exercise within theenvisaged timeframe. Management outlined its initial reaction by providing some commentson some specific proposals in the Staff paper.

63. The SMC agreed on the broad principles for the revision of the performance• management system. A Working Group will review the draft ST]AI and discuss theconcerns of Staff with a view to concluding the revision of the draft ST/AI by 20 August2014. :

64. The relevant documents are attached as SMC III, Annex III/Appendixes 13 and 14.


XI. MobilityA) Framework

66. Management introduced the topic on the basis of the paper and the historical development ofthe GA resolution on the mobility proposal of the Secretary-General, including consultativeprocess. The first job network will start on 1 January 2016. Within the parameters of the GAresolution and underlying reports (Secretary-General's reports, ACABQ report), and thetimeline set by the General Assembly, Management was open to suggestions for theimplementation of this policy. Family and other relevant concerns will also be considered,and there will be a standardized induction process to facilitate integration in all duty stations.

67. Staff stated that they felt the GA resolution was not precise and was subject to interpretation.Staff then expressed a number of concerns including the possible discrimination of staffmembers on the basis of gender, sexual orientation, race or ethnicity depending oncountry/duty station context if they were obliged to locate to certain duty stations. Staff thenshared a statement from "UN-Globe" (The statement is attached as SMC III, AnnexIII/Appendix 21). Staff also felt that the ICSC review on the compensation package for UNstaff members should be considered in the mobility discussion.

68. Management responded that they recognized there are challenges in some countries,

Page 13 of 20

including on sexual orientation or spousal work permits, which would have to be addressedin the host country agreement context. However, they pointed out that revisions of currentagreements could have consequences that might be detrimental to current arrangements assuch revisions are subject to bilateral agreements, not to the Secretary-General's authority. Interms of staff support, in July 2014 OHRM's newly developed HR Portal will go online. Itwill offer a better overview on entitlements and other UN conditions of service. There is alsoan agreement between the UN and the World Bank to share duty station specific informationthat will assist staff in making informed decisions about relocations. Particular hardshipconstraints will be further considered by the Constraints Panel as foreseen in the mobilityscheme. The ICSC review is not yet finalized, and the GA has not taken any decision on it.Management noted that this review is under the purview of the ICSC and not the Secretary-General.

69. The concerns of Staff are reflected in the Staff paper. Management responded to theseconcerns on the basis of a tabulated list of questions drawn up with the assistance of thePresident, which the SMC then discussed in more detail.

• 70 :The: SMC agreed: that a non-paper titledl !,SMC Discussion oni Career Development andMobility," which reflects areas, of discussion during the session and which will alsoincorporate the topics related to:transitional measures.addressed as per item C belowwill be the basis for the work of the Working Group on Mobility that will be establishedand it will be part ofthe documentation provided at the first meeting of that WorkingGroup. : ÿ : .... ;:i

71.The SMC also: agreed that progress on the:implementation of the:mobility Scheme will!-i:i:, be:a Standing item on the Agenda of future SMC sessions..:ÿ ÿÿ . -ÿ , ÿ,

B) Mobility - non-rotational posts

72. Management introduced the topic and provided details on how the list of non-rotational postshad been drawn up. They stressed that, at this stage, the list was provisional and that,therefore, the posts categorized as non-rotational might change in the future. Themethodology foreseen is that the list will be reviewed by each Job Network Board based onconsultations with departments. A separate Working Group is reviewing language posts incollaboration with DGACM.

73. Staff expressed serious concerns about the list of non-rotational posts. Staff felt the list wasunbalanced in term of departments and levels of positions and therefore required revisions.For transparency and in order to appear credible before the General Assembly, they felt thelist should be reviewed by a board or committee that included staff representatives. It shouldnot be reviewed by Job Network Boards that were designed to take placement decisions, notdetermine non-rotational posts. Staff also requested clarifications on the DGACM WorkingGroup and enquired about the confidentiality status of the list.

74. Management replied that the list had been produced objectively on the basis of departmentalfeedback and that the listed posts reflected specialist functions. On the DGACM WorkingGroup, Management clarified that there would be further discussions with staff

Page 14 of 20

representatives once initial work between OHRM and DGACM (at relevant duty stations)had been completed. Management confirmed that the provisional list was confidential.Management will inform staff at some stage in the process whether their post is non-rotational or not.

75. Following further discussions on the specific posts listed, Management responded that theywill review the provisional list again with senior management and see where it could beadjusted. Management will circulate the revised list in July 2014 in advance of thesubmission of the GA report. Staff will also be consulted on any future amendments to thelist.

I76. The SMC agreed that the amended non-rotational list will be circulated to SMCmembers in July 2014 and that any:future changes or amendments to the list will bepresented to the SMC.

C) Transitional Measures

77. Management referred to the agreements reached in SMC I in Arusha (2012). UNSU statedfor the record that they felt that, as no agreement had been reached in Arusha, the outcome ofSMC I must be qualified as Arusha disagreement.

78. Staff responded and raised concerns about some of the proposed transitional measures. Staffalso suggested that job swaps and voluntary mobility should be considered to be part of themobility policy. Management responded that they felt that job swaps and voluntary mobilitywere at variance with this policy but, during discussions in the proposed Working Group onmobility, they would explore ways in which Staff concerns on this issue could be addressed.

79. The SMC agreed that currently serving staff who are in the organization on 30 April2014 will continue to be subject to the eligibility requirementfor promotion up to D-1as defined in the current ST/AI/2010[3ÿ until 31 December 2020. In addition, staffmembers who have one geographical move in the Secretariat or in the UN CommonSystem will meet the new eligibility requirement for promotion. •

80. The President then closed the discussion on mobility.

XII. Disciplinary Measures and Investigations

81. Management introduced its paper on "Draft terms of reference for the Working Group oninvestigations and disciplinary matters," setting out the background of the issue withinSMCC/SMC since 2007. The Management Committee had requested in March 2013 that theAdministrative Instruction governing investigations and disciplinary matters (ST/AI/371) berevised on an urgent basis. This was required in order to "delineate a clear legislativeframework and authoritative practice guidelines for investigations, particularly regarding theapplication of due process." Management summarized the proposed Terms of Reference(ToR) for the Working Group. These focused on the areas to be discussed for the revision ofST/AI/371 (including general principles, including confidentiality, presumption of

Page 15 of 20

innocence, cooperation with investigations etc.), as well as the various procedures/steps to befollowed from the time of an incident of possible misconduct through the investigation to theconclusion of the matter. Finally, Management set out the proposed timeline for the work ofthe Working Group and the issuance of the revised ST/AI!371. Management further proposedthat the work on possible revisions of ST/SGB/2008/5 be undertaken upon completion of thework on ST/AI/371.

82. Staff welcomed the paper and agreed to the proposed terms of reference for this WorkingGroup. However, Staff was concerned about investigations being conducted by lay panelsand the challenges in handling cases with anonymous witnesses or where there were fears ofretaliation. Management provided some preliminary responses to these concerns and it wasagreed that these and other issues would be discussed by the Working Group.

83. An OIOS representative (also a member of the proposed Working Group) attended thesession and made himself available for questions. Staff appreciated the presence of an OIOSrepresentative and raised a number of questions about the OIOS manual, due process duringinvestigations, feedback on complainants, anonymity and confidentiality etc. to which theOIOS representative provided responses, including an explanation of new procedures fordealing with the recording of subject interviews.

84,iThe !SMC agreed on the proposed ToR for the Working Group and that areasi! of]concern raised by Staff will be discussed further bythe:iWorking Groupil. • : ]



XIII. Whistleblower" Protection / Protection from Retaliation

87. Staff introduced their paper and emphasized the right of staff members to be protected fromretaliation for reporting violations of UN rules. Staff believed the determination of protectedactivities by the Ethics Office should be an appealable decision. This would allow staffmembers to formally challenge a decision by the Ethics Office not to recognize a staffmember as a whistleblower and/or not to recommend protection of the staff member. Staffbelieved there are delays in the review process as it involves several offices (Ethics Office,OIOS). During these delays, Staff felt that the Ethics Office should take preliminaryprotective measures. Staff was also of the view that there are instances where OIOS does notinvestigate a complaint or does not investigate a complaint properly. Staff also expressedconcern about appropriate measures in cases of retaliation and lack of information about thestatus or outcome of the review of complaints or investigations which could, for example, bethrough the publication of the OIOS reports. Staff stated that the Ethics Office is tasked toprotect whistleblowers but has no tool to do so and that staff are often concerned aboutmaking complaints. In addition, Staff has heard about a planned revision of the protectionfrom retaliation policy but has not been contacted by the Ethics Office about this matter. Apotential review of the policy should consider major donors' expectations thatwhistleblowers in the UN should be properly protected.

Page 16 of 20

88. The OIOS representative provided some clarifications on what were felt to be someinaccuracies in the paper submitted by Staff. It was pointed out that the treatment of OIOSreports is also guided by a General Assembly resolution. Reports may be made available in aredacted version to Member States upon their request and may be made public in the contextof tribunal proceedings in some instances. OIOS also clarified that it only providesrecommendations to the Ethics Office.

89.

90.

92.

93.

94.

91.

Management clarified that OHRM and DM are involved only where a retaliation has beenestablished after an investigation. Proven retaliators are disciplined in accordance with therules with each case being considered on its merits. A summary overview of cases ispublished in the Secretary-General's annual report to the General Assembly on disciplinarymeasures.

Representatives of the Ethics Office (via video link) responded to the issues raised by Staff.They explained that the Ethics Office is in constant contact with staff representative bodiesand monitors the rapidly changing developments in national legislations, and explained thateach Member State has a different position. Many claims do not meet the standard ofprotected activity or whistleblower activity. The Ethics Officer further provided statistics onthis as well as on its work. The Ethics Office representatives stated that they are in constantcontact with staff members who have submitted complaints and that Ethics Office effortsshould also be seen in the context of Organizational resource constraints. The main focusshould be on training and prevention so there are fewer instances of retaliation and fear thatmay stop staff from coming forward. In 2012, the Ethics Office requested that the Secretary-General revise the policy, and a review of the existing policy was conducted by CanadianJudge Ms. Lois Otis who made a number of recommendations. The Ethics Office consultedwith relevant departments on proposals based on the recommendations provided by JudgeOtis. On the question of appeals of Ethics Office determinations, the UNAT judgement willclarify the discussion. If the determination by the Ethics Office is found to be appealable,then Management, on behalf of the Secretary-General, would have oversight authority overthe Ethics Office's determinations, rendering independence of that office entirely moot.

Management also provided answers to or clarifications on the questions raised in paragraph34 of the Staff paper where the matter was within the Secretary-General's, rather than headsof other agencies', authority.

Management agreed on the importance of the recommendations of the Staff that arecontained in paragraph 34 of the Staff paper and assuredStaff that any draft of arevised policy on protection from retaliation will be shared with staff representatives inaccordance with appropriate consultation requirements. /

The relevant documents are attached as SMC III, Annex III/Appendix 23.

The President then closed the discussion on this item.

XIV. Use of UN Working Languages

95. Staff introduced this topic on the basis of the Staff paper. Staff emphasized that English andFrench are the two working languages of the UN Secretariat with General Assembly

Page 17 of 20

resolutions 65/247 and 67/255 mandating the use of both languages. Based on a Staff-conducted review, Staff felt that job descriptions issued between 1 April 2013 to 31 March2014, 92.3 % of job openings for positions in New York put emphasis on fluency in writtenand spoken English. According to Staff, this does not respect the principle of equality amongthe two working languages. They felt that having job openings published in French wouldincrease their attractiveness for French speaking candidates. Jobs should only require fluencyin one of the two working languages and working level knowledge in the other. Languageskills and requirements may also impact mobility. Other staff representatives explained thatthere are jobs that function in only one specific language while others may require fluency intwo languages. For some duty stations, having strict language requirements may limit thepool of suitable candidates, requiring other solutions such as the use of translators.

96. Management stated that all job openings are issued in both English and French and that theUN careers portal is bilingual (French/English). A job opening indicates the languagerequirements for the specific position which, in addition to requiring fluency in one workinglanguage, also identifies other language requirements depending on duty station, departmentand function. Language also has to be considered in the context of client expectations toensure effective delivery of the department's mandates. The YPP exams can be taken inFrench or English as specific positions for candidates are not known at the exam stage. Themanuals for hiring managers provide specific instructions on stating language requirementsfor specific positions in order for candidates to fulfil the function effectively. Managementstressed that there is no discrimination on the basis of language and that these practices fullycomply with the General Assembly resolutions. In addition, they pointed out that, for manystaff members, working in French or English means working in a foreign language as neitherof these is their first or mother language. This often results in reciprocal assistance beingprovided by colleagues with different language backgrounds.

97. Following further discussion on this issue, the President commented that he felt that the 1:,discussioÿiÿ had contributed to a better understanding of the issues by both parties and

i!i: that it appeared that there are already some pragmatic approaches in place to address[i :i:: :staff memberi:concerns.: i ;:: ÿ .... i:iÿ ;ÿ H:: : " ']

98: The SMC report will alsobe avaiiableto reflect the Staff's eoncernsand Management]: : responses onthis issue: i ,: :ÿ:: )ÿ/! iÿ : 1


100. The President the closed the discussion on this item.

XV. Working Group Papers for Next Session

101.

i. Improving Career Development for GS staff

Staff introduced a paper on career development for GS staff. Staff explained that the

Page 18 of 20

career development of staff in the GS and related categories is limited by the UNSecretariat's regulatory framework. Staff would like an SMC resolution to draws theattention of Member States to this matter and align the Secretariat's framework with thepractices of other UN Common System entities that place no restrictions on moves for staffin the GS and related categories to posts in the Professional or higher categories.

ii. Enhance investigative capacity in case of the unnatural death of a staffmember

102. Staff introduced a paper on enhancing the capacity to investigate cases of the unnaturaldeath of staff members.

iii. Widen scope of prohibition of discrimination, harassment, and sexualharassment

103. Staff introduced the proposal to discuss a widening of the scope of the current frameworkgoverning the prohibition of harassment, discrimination etc. as some categories of personnelare not covered by it (e.g., judges). The context for this Staff paper is ST/SGB/2011/6/Rev. 1.

!04, Having thanked the Staff for outlining their concerns on these issues, the Presidentexplained that these and other issues that were stiff outstanding from this session will beincluded in the future work programme of the SMC subject to prioritization of theseissues by the Contact Group. i


XVI. SMC Yearly Programme of Work and Budget

A) Yearly Programme of Work

106. The President presented an overview of the proposed yearly programme of work for theSMC during 2014-15, with the next SMC session to be scheduled for April 2015. PeriodicSMC meetings (by videoconference) will also tentatively be scheduled for September 2014,December 2014 and February 2015.

107. The programme comprised three main components. First, feedback from the variousWorking or Contact Groups that had been established in this 2014 session; second, issuesthat had been raised by Staff and Management at SMC III and on which further discussionswere felt to be needed and, third, reviewing the work of all the "open" Working Groups thathad been established before SMC III that had been identified in this session and to determinehow they were to be progressed

Page 19 of 20

B) Budget

108. The President presented the draft budget, attached to this Report.

XVII. Adoption of Report

[.The SMC adopted this report on 29 June 2014. ÿ 1XVIII. Closing Statements

1References to or summaries of statements made by representatives of other departments (OIOS, OHCHR, Ethics

Office) have not been shared with or clear by such representatives prior to adoption of this report.

Page 20 of 20

Date post:	03-May-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	duongthien
View:	216 times
Download:	2 times